Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.DHANABAL
K. Dasarathan – Appellant
Versus
Arulmigu Sri Thandava Vinayagar Temple – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. DHANABAL, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and Judgment passed in AS.No.247 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Appellant is the defendant in the main suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the main suit for the relief of declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 13.07.1990 registered at Doc.No.4829 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar, insofar as the description of the western side boundary mentioned as West Mada street is concerned, as illegal, unlawful and non-est in the eye of law and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiffs.
3. The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred Appeal Suit before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.247 of 2014 and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court, thereby the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant.
4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties
A suit challenging a sale deed on the grounds of boundary relevance is barred by limitation if filed long after the deed's registration, with the plaintiff lacking standing due to the non-existence o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper stamping and registration for a valid sale deed, the distinction between dedication to a temple and a sale transaction, ....
The court ruled that rightful ownership evidenced through proper documentation takes precedence over claims of adverse possession by the defendant regarding property allegedly belonging to a temple.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of the temple on the date of filing the suit was sufficient to establish its possession, and the defendants' right to assert tit....
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
Point of law : Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Wh....
The HR & CE Department is a necessary party in title disputes involving temple properties, and amendments to include declarations must be timely filed within the limitation period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Officer has the right to file a suit for temple properties, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the prop....
Revenue documents are presumed to be genuine and correct, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging their validity to prove that they are vitiated by fraud, surreptitious entry, or non-co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
